Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2022 [1].

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957[edit]

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. While the speech itself isn't particularly well-remembered given the legislation the speaker was trying to prevent passing, there are some entertaining antics (i.e. a "urological mystery") that spice it up. Many thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for his help at PR! AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:1963_US_Senate_Chamber.jpg — if you're claiming publication without a copyright notice, the image description needs to list such a publication (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: Added the name of the work, per [2] and [3]. Is this enough, or is there a more formal way of listing the publication on Commons? AviationFreak💬 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, because as far as I can tell these sources don't say whether there was a copyright notice, registration, and/or renewal. (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Gotcha. I looked through these copyright renewal logs and didn't see anything before uploading, but it's entirely possible I missed it or was looking in the wrong place. These are the only sources I'm aware of that reference the work. AviationFreak💬 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Whoops, forgot to ping buidhe - I'm not great with the ins and outs of copyright protection, so please let me know if this won't fly. :) AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The photograph was likely originally published as part of a larger work, so it would be covered by that copyright. You would probably need to see the original publication to know for sure. See File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg for an example of how to know that copyright does not apply. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't plan to be getting ahold of that publication anytime soon, and from what I can tell there's no information on the publication's or image's copyright available online. I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion due to copyright uncertainty at Commons. AviationFreak💬 01:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink - support[edit]

I was aware of this filibuster before reading it, so I wanted to review the article.

  • I'd explain more about what the law was in the lead. The lead would ideally be two paragraphs, so maybe also go into more detail about Thurmond, like what age he was, how long he had been a senator.
    • Done.
  • " It began at 8:54 p.m. and lasted until 9:12 p.m." - local time is implied, but I suggest adding a note, saying that all dates are in Eastern Daylight Time.
    • Added a note stating all times are in the Eastern Time Zone, not DST. From what I can tell, DST was not federally standardized until 1966. I've never been great with keeping Standard Time and DST straight, so please let me know if you think this is incorrect.
  • "This made the filibuster the longest single-person filibuster in United States Senate history" - you mentioned that Thurmond yielded his time, so perhaps explain more what you mean by "single-person filibuster"? And perhaps also explain a bit what a filibuster is, both in the lead and in the article? Perhaps explain why Thurmond was allowed to filibuster, and what that meant, versus cloture. Like, why did everything stop while he talked, and how come it was able to pass two hours after he stopped?
    • Done - Will expand lede a bit further down the road
  • "The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was designed to federally secure and protect the right of African-Americans to vote." - Maybe expand on this a bit, that Eisenhower's AG proposed the bill alongside the NAACP
    • Added that it was supported by NAACP and Eisenhower administration
  • "among other things" - that language is a bit weasel-y.
    • Removed weaseliness
  • "Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights." - this feels like it could be the start of a new paragraph. The first paragraph of the background could explain the bill, then have the next one be about Thurmond himself, as well as the bit about the S.C. governor.
    • Done; moved a bit about the specific provision in the bill up to that paragraph as well since it fit better there IMO.
  • "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Georgia Senator Richard Russell's office four days prior to Thurmond's speech." - maybe give the date
    • Done
  • Thurmond claimed that the civil rights bill constituted a "cruel and unusual punishment" - if this part is a quote, then "claimed" isn't the right word. Perhaps remarked would be better? See MOS:CLAIM. You also use "claim later with - "and longtime Capitol Hill staffer Bertie Bowman claimed in his memoir that Thurmond had been fitter with a catheter."
    • Done
  • "He was primarily focused on a provision in the bill that would allow minor voting rights contempt cases to be tried by a judge without a jury present, but that allowed a second trial by jury for penalties in the first trial greater than 45 days' imprisonment or a $300 fine." - by "minor", I immediately thought "underage", so perhaps there's a better word than "minor". This part is a bit lengthy and confusing, and yet it's the nature of why Thurmond was intent on speaking for more than 24 hours. I'd expand on this a bit, if you don't mind.
    • Done. Very much agree that making this understandable to the reader is important, so let me know if this can be improved further.
  • "Thurmond and other Southern senators saw this as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury" - but the same Southern senators had an agreement not to filibuster? So, they didn't like it, but they didn't want to hold it up?
    • This is explained at the end of the third paragraph in "Outcome and reception". Essentially, a filibuster would be ineffective because cloture would be reached easily and it would only serve to damage the South's reputation. Is there a good way to state this concisely in the paragraph you're referencing?
  • " On the morning of the 29th, Thurmond's voice dropped to a mumble and his tone became increasingly monotonous." - minor question, but did he have a microphone?
    • Not sure - It appears that microphones had been used in the past for specific events, but (at least from that source) we can't be sure of Senate events being mic'd before 1971. I feel that adding anything about this without a solid ref would be getting near OR territory.
  • When did Thurmond continue his filibuster after Senator Proxmire was sworn in?
    • I don't believe any sources note this - The closest I can find is the first "Editor's note" in the (unfortunately, untimestamped) full transcript, which I believe indicates that Proxmire was sworn in.
      • That's fine. Maybe indicate that the filibuster continued after the swearing in (which would lead to the bit about other senators questioning him). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consuming 96 pages in the Congressional Record, Thurmond's filibuster cost taxpayers over $7,000 in printing costs ($65,000 in 2020 dollars)." - so I love this bit, but I think it could be expanded a bit. Maybe say something like Thurmond's words were dictated (ideally the congressional typists who dictated it, but that might not be known), or the total number of words, to explain how it would take up 96 pages and cost $7,000?
    • Unfortunately can't find info on the individual typists or total word count (would just using an off-the-shelf word processor to calculate this be OR?), but I did add a bit about "teams of stenographers" from one of the book sources.
  • "According to Joseph Crespino, the filibuster, as well as his partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the preceding year" - that could imply that Crespino wrote part of the Southern Manifesto. This sentence is a bit odd because of the extended quote, along with the first part.
    • Pushed some words around so it's hopefully more readable now. The second part of the quote could be cut as well if still not very readable.
      • It's better, but the mixture of the quote and regular language is a bit odd. Maybe note something like "In his biography [titled X], Crespino noted the historical nature of Thurmond's filibuster and partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the previous year. He described these events as "[sealing] Thurmond's reputation as one of the South's last Confederates, a champion of white southerners' campaign of 'massive resistance'" to civil rights. Ideally you'd get the last bit of the quote in there, which I think is a pretty powerful statement. Also, a minor note - don't link Crespino the second time in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1964, Thurmond (who would switch his affiliation to the Republican Party later that year) participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964." - the part in parenthesis should be written out fully. I suggest moving it to the end of the sentence, like - "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later that year, he switched his affiliation to the Republican Party."
    • Done; Referenced party switch more concretely.

In all, the article is pretty good. I feel like some parts should be expanded on a bit, so the legislative nuance makes sense to all readers (and not just political junkies). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I haven't made some of the more involved changes just yet in the name of sleep, but I'm eager to get on those when I get a chance. AviationFreak💬 04:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Finished these changes; let me know if you see anything else that could use some work! AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks much better! Just two minor quibbles left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Done! AviationFreak💬 21:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to support, but I wonder why the bit about the SC governor was removed. I would say, yes, the Quint source appears reliable - he has his PhD in history. As for the book by Washington-Williams, I'd think that the senator's daughter would know about the senator's mindset, supporting the claim that Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are good points. The sources didn't support many claims (few, if any, were particularly important claims in my opinion), and I think Kavyansh.Singh is right in that a contemporaneous source and a possible NPOV-problem source aren't as reliable as possible. With that said, the claims weren't particularly contentious (with the exception of the Timmerman quote) and I'd be happy to reinstate them if we can come to an agreement on the sources' reliabilities. AviationFreak💬 22:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

  • Ah, the wonderful idiosyncrasies of American politics. Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like perhaps a footnote giving a more extended definition for filibuster in the lead; extended speech doesn't really cover it.
    • Added a bit more in the lede's second sentence. There's already a footnote in that sentence so I worry another might look crammed, plus a more detailed definition of a filibuster is given in the second paragraph of the body.
  • "through a compromise" → Is the link for compromise needed? Very common word.
    • Removed
  • Filibuster is linked at second mention instead of first: the first mention is at "not stage an organized filibuster".
    • Article's paragraphs have been rearranged since this review; filibuster is linked at first mention in lede and body.
  • "but a staffer quickly put it out of his reach after Thurmond had drunk a glass" → Any reason why?
    • Added "to reduce the likelihood of him needing to leave for a restroom".
  • "authorship of the Southern Manifesto" → Link Southern Manifesto.
    • Done
  • "South's last Confederates" → Link Confederate.
    • Done; Fairly certain both this and the previous change fall within the bounds of MOS:LWQ.
  • Overall an excellent article. AryKun (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AryKun: Thank you! Changes have been made, let me know if anything else catches your eye. AviationFreak💬 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending confirmation of the spot-checks. AryKun (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh — support[edit]

I reviewed the article at peer-review. Pinging @Extraordinary Writ as they did the GA review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "intended to stop the passage of" — shouldn't that be "intended to prevent the passage of"; you can't technically stop a bill's passage, you can delay or prevent it.
    • Done
  • "from a number of historical and legal documents" — how about "from various historical and legal documents"
    • Done
  • "prior to the marathon speech" — marathon?
    • Wiktionary gives "Any extended or sustained activity" as a definition - Let me know if this doesn't work for some other reason
  • "He was 54 when he" — "He was aged 54 when he"
    • Done
  • "Thurmond was focused on a" — remove 'was'
    • Done
  • "While the filibuster was supported by" — would it be better to replace 'while' with 'although'?
    • Done
  • "of other southern states" — the article needs to be consistent whether 'southern' needs to be capitalized or not.
    • All references to "South/Southern" capitalized per MOS:COMPASS, with the exception of the Crespino quote (which is lowercase in the source).
  • "within the Department of Justice" — better link target would be United States Department of Justice
    • Done, thank you for catching this!
  • "Thurmond's filibuster" — "His filibuster"
    • Where? This phrase is used 4 times in prose and it works fine where it is in my opinion, particularly at the beginnings of paragraphs.
      • Can't remember where. I searches again, but now I think that looks fine, so leave this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since most judges would opt not to try a case without a jury if doing so made a second trial more likely" — who speculates this?
    • Crespino is cited at the end of the sentence; Does this need to be in-text attributed?
  • "Six years later in 1954" — Either just mention 'six years later', or just '1954'. Both together are not really required.
    • Done
  • "Thurmond ran as a Democrat and was elected to the Senate in a write-in campaign" — perhaps worth clarifying for readers who don't know that Thurmond ran as a Democrat, but not on the Democratic ticket. Edgar Brown was the official Democratic nominee.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower is never linked in the prose (except image caption and lead)
    • Done
  • "Book Sources" subheading should really be "Book sources"
    • Done
  • Entirely optional, but worth mentioning that Thurmond was, well, a senator even at age of "100". Period.
    • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Got these all taken care of except where otherwise noted. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion of this article as a featured article. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The Quint source is of 1958, merely months after the filibuster. Why do you think it is a "high-quality reliable source", as required by the FA criteria 1c? Same with Washington-Williams one; should we treat memoir by the Daughter of Strom Thurmond as a reliable secondary source?
    • Both sources (and the claims they supported that I couldn't find a different source for) removed. (See discussion above)
  • Same question for Politico. Although, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Politico, it is generally reliable even for politics, what makes it a "high-quality reliable source" is unclear to me. Do you have anything to add?
    • The comments at this RfC indicate that Politico's reliability is perhaps questionable in WP:PIA-related topics, but the consensus appears to be "generally reliable" in other areas. The AmPol Politico article referenced in the Thurmond article is pretty matter-of-fact and unopinionated in my opinion - The only bit of info it sources is that southern Democrats opposed the bill (which is pretty uncontroversial when you look at book sources, the Politico article just states it far more concisely).
      • I accept that the particular piece you cite is reliable, but FAs requires the sources which are of highest quality in reliability. I am not asking you to remove that source, but can that same content be cited to any other better academic source? If so, suggesting to do so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not as far as I can tell - Larger academic sources present a more nuanced view and readers are assumed to already have the understanding that Southern Democrats generally opposed racial integration and civil rights. The Politico article is more bite-sized and doesn't assume prior knowledge, so I think we'd have a hard time finding an academic source that states it so clearly.
          • Okay, that is fine. I feel that Politico as a whole is not the highest quality reliable source, but due the the above stated reasons, combined by fact that it is used just once to cite an uncontroversial fact makes be believe that this particular piece is fine in this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fox News sources appears to be initially from Associated Press, so it appears fine.
  • What is your approach for italicizing the news agency/media outlet? I feel that media agencies and outlets should be italicized only if our Wikipedia page title also does the same. So, I think that United States House of Representatives, National Archives, Eisenhower Library, United States Senate, Library of Congress, and BBC News should not be italicized in references. Shift them to the |publisher= parameter. Also note that National Public Radio is in italics in Ref#28, and not in italics in Ref#10.
  • Eisenhower Library should by Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home. National Archives should be National Archives and Records Administration.
    • Done
  • Page ranges take en-dashes instead of regular hyphen. So, "pp. 175-176" should be "pp. 175–176". Check it for all page ranges in References and sources.
    • Done
  • The Senate, 1789-1989 should have en-dash instead of regular hyphen in year range.
    • Done
  • Suggesting to keep the title of all "book sources" in Title case.
    • Done
  • Entirely optional, but I think "New York, New York" should be "New York City, New York".
    • Done
  • "Regan Books" should be "ReganBooks" (without space)
    • Source removed
  • "Crespino (2012), pp. 117" — should be 'p.'
    • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better, almost done. Just clarification needed at few more places. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Should all be covered now; let me know if anything else sticks out AviationFreak💬 17:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum (13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)): Above comment striked. Pass for source (1) reliability, and (2) formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from HF[edit]

  • "The 1964 filibuster was carried out by a group of Southern senators over 60 days and was only ended by a cloture vote" - where does the source specify southern senators or 60 days?
    • This is my bad - I believe this was cited to this source at some point which states that the measure occupied the Senate for 60 days (our article on the bill says the filibuster itself was only 54 - my bad again) and was later moved to the wrong reference. Revised the sentence to remove length of time, and recited to this source which explicitly mentions the Southern bloc.
  • "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964" - source mentions a filibuster by civil rights opponents and later quotes Thurmond, but never explicitly states that Thurmond was part of the filibuster
    • I would argue that the source does state that Thurmond participated. While it's perhaps not as explicit as it could be (I can re-ref if needed), the source states that "Thurmond argued that the bill took away the rights of white southerners..." when discussing the Senate debate - I don't see how this doesn't show Thurmond's participation in the filibuster against the bill.
  • "Thurmond was repeatedly elected and served in the Senate for 48 years, retiring at age 100 as the oldest and longest-serving U.S. senator ever" - Thurmond was still technically in the Senate when this source was published. I would feel a lot more comfortable if this was supported by a post-January 2003 source.
    • Done; re-refed to the Senate bio of him and removed quote about longest-serving senator because while it was true at the time of his retirement, it isn't anymore and the Senate bio doesn't mention it.
  • "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater spoke" - this implies that Goldwater was up there for speaking purposes, but the source implies that Goldwater was going to use the time to add something to the Congressional Record?
    • My understanding was that an insertion into the Congressional Record was essentially another way to say "he spoke about something and it was added to the Record", but that doesn't seem to be the case. Revised article accordingly.
  • "Thurmond was allowed to leave the stand only once," - why the word allowed? I don't think there was a prohibition against that, and surely he wasn't still at the stand when Proxmire was being admitted and such
    • Removed the bit about "the stand" - Senators cannot leave the chamber during a speech, which is my bad. Clarified that "Thurmond was allowed to leave for the restroom one time."
  • "Thurmond claimed to have taken daily steam baths leading up to the filibuster in" - why "Thurmond claimed"? In neither of the sources is it stated that this was a claim he made - Fox presents it as a statement of fact, and NPR attributes it to a book, not Thurmond.
    • Stated as fact, and cited directly to the book as opposed to NPR.
  • " who spoke against the Submerged Lands Act for 22 hours and 26 minutes in 1953." - what's the relevant quote from Byrd here? The other source states that he was filibustering the Tidelands Oil legislation
    • Byrd is there to reinforce the exact time of 22:26, but it can be removed if it's unnecessary. Added WaPo source stating the specific legislation (I believe the term "tidelands oil legislation" is a more generic term for the specific bill - as far as I can tell that's not the name of any one bill).
  • "Thurmond concluded his filibuster after 24 hours and 18 minutes at 9:12 p.m. on August 29," - source doesn't give the date or time
    • Cited to Cohodas source, though I thought given a start time and length WP:CALC allows for this.

I haven't checked all of the sources available to me, but it's obvious just from this that serious source-text integrity issues are present. I am opposing and will recommend that this nomination is not promoted until the book sources have been able to be thoroughly spot-checked. Hog Farm Talk 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and pointing out these issues. I've responded to all of them, and if you have any concerns about my responses please let me know. :) AviationFreak💬 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • African-Americans is linked in the lead but not in the body. Also, our article has no hyphen.
  • Filibuster is also not linked in the body
  • Storm Thurmond is not linked or named in full in the body. The body should essentially "start from scratch" rather than essentially continuing from the lead, so he should be named in full and linked on first mention.
  • I think filibuster could do with a little more definition in the body. In the lead you say "....or extended speech" but don't restate that in the body, plus it's actually a bit more complex than that. It's an artificially long speech with the specific purpose of blocking a law and I think you need to make that explicit.
  • I stand corrected on point 2 above, filibuster is actually linked on about its fifth usage in the body - should be on the first
  • Ah, and at this point you also define it - that should be earlier
  • "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber" - pedantic maybe, but specify that they cannot leave the chamber *during a speech* as opposed to ever :-)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I completely forgot about this one. I will take another look before the weekend is out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)==== Detailed spot checks by Kavyansh ==== Moved to FAC talk page (on 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Buidhe and @Hog Farm: I did a detailed spot-check above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got through a good chunk of the table. Taking a break for now, will hopefully be able to finish it off tonight. Major thanks to Kavyansh for taking the time to put this together! :) AviationFreak💬 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Kavyansh.Singh. I've filled in replies for all s and s, so feel free to check my work and let me know if there's anything you'd like changed. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Replies are in; I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other on Ref#9? I don't see what would govern what causes a speech to end except the Senate rules. Thanks! Also, congrats on TFA!! AviationFreak💬 03:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Interesting to see a video with the blurb! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the spot-checks are almost finished. Just requiring other editors advise for the following points:

  • "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of cooked hamburger." — Can "ground sirloin steak" be interpreted as a "hamburger"?
  • "Thurmond's departure from the senators' agreement was later criticized by party leaders including Russell and Herman Talmadge." — The source does not mention Talmadge's first name. Is that fine?
  • "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber or sitting down while speaking, as doing so would end their speech." — The source does not explicitly say these were rules.

Apart from these, I feel rest all source-to-text integrity check is done and verified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and @Buidhe: Can you please advise regarding the above mentioned three points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'd say no on this one. (it's been so long since my one year in junior high FFA where we talked about beef cuts), but a sirloin steak is not equivalent to what hamburger meat usually is. 2) I would be generally okay, provided that there's only relevant Talmadge being discussed in the source 3) needs a source actually stating that these were rules. Hog Farm Talk 20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: and @Buidhe: - The above two changes have been made here and here. AviationFreak💬 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AviationFreak, any responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I was under the impression that the ball was in the reviewers' court, so to speak. I haven't seen any response to the final couple changes since I made them in mid-March (see above thread). AviationFreak💬 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't readily see a response to Kavyansh.Singh's comments of 23 March on the talk page, but no doubt they can enlighten us. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all that happened on 23 March was the moving of the source review table from this page to the talk page due to the FAC guidelines on templates. My understanding is that no reviewing or other discussion about the article has taken place since 14 March. AviationFreak💬 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: Oh sure. I did a spot check for this article (now on this FAC talk page). There were few issues which I was able to find. After set of replies and discussion, we were left with three particular issues where there was slight disagreement. I mentioned those three issues here for a third opinion, Hog Farm helped and their concerns were addressed by the nominator (here and here). I think we should ask Hog Farm whether they feel their concerns adequately addressed and do they still oppose the nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still at oppose. There were just too many issues I found doing spot-checks, and it turned out a few of them were content errors even. I don't trust the sourcing enough to support without every single statement being checked, and I think we can all agree that that sort of thing is not appropriate to do at an FAC. So no, I do not intend to support. Hog Farm Talk 04:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Hi! "... without every single statement being checked": I do think every single statement is checked here. I agree many of them were indeed content errors, and your oppose was well reasoned, but do these issues still exist in this version of the article? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this - I work as an auditor. There's a certain point with an audit where after I have found enough issues, I'm not going to sign off on something. This article has reached that point for me. @FAC coordinators: can determine if this is valid or not, but I am not supporting the promotion of this one and am unlikely to strike the oppose. Hog Farm Talk 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the questions that I think the FAC guidelines and policy leave unanswered. Hog Farm has a valid point here, and from my relatively brief time working at FAC it appears that most opposes are based on reaching a certain threshold of errors. Each reviewer has their own threshold for error and some may choose to allow the nominator several revisions before deciding to oppose, but ultimately it's up to each reviewer how much they "let slide". Anyway, I think the big question is this: What's the difference if a nominator whose article fails can just re-nom in two weeks? In most cases, I think the article's fail at FAC is done before all issues are properly addressed (or even pointed out, in some cases). In this case, however, I think that most (won't say all) of the sourcing issues, at least, have been taken care of. Assuming most issues currently are taken care of and this nom fails, is there any reason why the article could not just be re-nomed after two weeks of dormancy? AviationFreak💬 16:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, this is one of the tough ones. Sorry AviationFreak, but I am going to archive this as, like Hog Farm, I have lost faith in the source to text integrity of its citing. It may well be that it is now fine, but I just don't feel confident enough in that to sign off on it. You raise a good point. What I would expect, and I imagine my fellow coordinators would agree (@FAC coordinators: ), is that the nominator would reassure themselves that every cite is squeaky clean - yes, I know, potentially a pig of a job - before renominating. At its next appearance there would be close to a zero tolerance approach - if much more than trivial or debatable citation issues were identified it would be immediately archived. It is common in these situations for a nominator to ask an experienced reviewer to thoroughly spot check prior to renomination. Perhaps as part of a PR, perhaps not. Their certification of citation soundness - as it were - near the head of the renomination causes everyone to relax and treat the rest as a normal nom. (This is merely a point, not a requirement.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Strom_Thurmond_filibuster_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957/archive1&oldid=1081044726"